EE ruined my credit score

SusieT

mattvolatile wrote: »

Because part of the DD Guarantee explicitly protects people from having money debited about which they were not sufficiently warned in advance.



If the OP was not notified correctly, as he asserts, then the instruction to debit £18 was not in accordance with the DD scheme rules. You also don't have to inform your provider that you're canceling the debit, though to be fair, it is advised.

Obviously if you're continuing to receive what you paid for, that's a legitimate default, but if the OP is correct that they didn't inform him of the upcoming debit, EE were in breach of the scheme rules.

The whole problem is that the £18 was NOT taken by DD, as it had been cancelled, and is therefore outstanding. The OP cancelled the DD after receiving an email from EE stating that the account had a nil balance, and thought that there would be no more invoices to come, thus they reported the £18 as outstanding on the credit report.

mattvolatile

Doesn't matter. Customers are allowed to cancel their direct debit at any time simply by calling their bank. The default here relates to a failed direct debit which was not properly conducted under scheme rules (if OP was not informed of the amount in advance).

In essence, it seems to me irrelevant if the payment succeeded or failed, when the payment request itself was irregular. In the very least, I think it's worth asking the scheme complaint system what they think.

There are cases listed at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/27/27-directdebit-guarantee.htm which give some sense of how all this is supposed to work. Essentially, it's actually irrelevant to the Direct Debit scheme if the money is owed or not (see Mrs B's complaint about her son's school fees), just if the instruction was properly carried out by the debitor, and the creditor's bank.

mattvolatile

In essence, were I drafting a complaint on this, as well as complaining to the CRAs and to EE, I'd write to the DD Guarantee Scheme pointing out that as the £18 should never have been taken, and therefore should never have been able to enter default in this way, the default notice is illegitimate.

Whether or not the OP actually owed the £18 (which remains unclear), the series of events which seem to have lead to the default notice seem to be entirely based on EE's errors. They should have pursued him for the sum owing by contacting him and requesting payment, not issuing a default notice after a failed DD which the OP was not notified about.

All of that evidence would build to a pretty good case for having the default lifted, and I think be fairly compelling to the Ombudsman of EE themselves refused to budge.

OP: in your complaint to EE, request details of when and how you were informed of the original £18 owing.

Vasilis_M

adindas wrote: »

If common sense prevail here,

If your record how that you never miss the payment, For the tiny amount of £18, they should have contacted you by email, phone, writing, etc before reporting a default to CRAs.

If common sense apply here, it is highly unlikely that it is a deliberate attempt to avoid payment for such a tiny amount. Are there many people on earth here want to ruin their credit worthiness just for the sake of £18 ?

For other people it is very simple tosay. it is a statement of fact, true record, etc. Keep in mind the bank have not been tying to contact the OP asking for payment and there is no statement from the OP s/he is not intending to pay.

Thank you very much.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why would a company try to screw a customer up instead of trying to resolve an issue like this as smoothly as possible?
Especially someone without a history of late payments or any sort of problems.
It wouldn't be so hard to reach me, they have both my email and my phone!

Pensioned_Off

mattvolatile wrote: »

In essence, were I drafting a complaint on this, as well as complaining to the CRAs and to EE, I'd write to the DD Guarantee Scheme pointing out that as the £18 should never have been taken, and therefore should never have been able to enter default in this way, the default notice is illegitimate.

Whether or not the OP actually owed the £18 (which remains unclear), the series of events which seem to have lead to the default notice seem to be entirely based on EE's errors. They should have pursued him for the sum owing by contacting him and requesting payment, not issuing a default notice after a failed DD which the OP was not notified about.

All of that evidence would build to a pretty good case for having the default lifted, and I think be fairly compelling to the Ombudsman of EE themselves refused to budge.

OP: in your complaint to EE, request details of when and how you were informed of the original £18 owing.

That argument about the DD guarantee is utter nonsense - there are no more words.

mattvolatile

Do enlighten us.

The scheme is quite clear: notice must be given before payment is attempted to be taken. That didn't happen in this case, on the facts we have before us. The Ombudsman have also been clear that whether or not the creditor owes the sum demanded or not, the guarantee applies where the debit instruction was not correctly notified in advance.

He's not going to solve the Default Notice on that ground alone, but it's certainly evidence of EE's role in causing the problem, which is what he needs to do to get a complaint upheld.

Vasilis_M

mattvolatile wrote: »

Do enlighten us.

The scheme is quite clear: notice must be given before payment is attempted to be taken. That didn't happen in this case, on the facts we have before us. The Ombudsman have also been clear that whether or not the creditor owes the sum demanded or not, the guarantee applies where the debit instruction was not correctly notified in advance.

He's not going to solve the Default Notice on that ground alone, but it's certainly evidence of EE's role in causing the problem, which is what he needs to do to get a complaint upheld.

They emailed me earlier on today and they said that they sent two letters but I received none...

[Deleted User]

You cancelling a DD doesn't constitute something being covered by the DD guarantee.

You cancelled it so you are responsible for it.
It failed because you cancelled it - not because of an issue with the DD system not working etc.

Put a SAR request into EE and if they can produce the dated letters then you don’t really have a leg to stand on.

Unless you’ve moved since cancelling the EE account and didn’t update them with your new address, in which case they would have sent them to the address on the account (the previous address).

At the end of the day you owe the money, you cancelled the DD before receiving the final bill so the onus is on you.

Vasilis_M

!!! wrote: »

You cancelling a DD doesn't constitute something being covered by the DD guarantee.

You cancelled it so you are responsible for it.
It failed because you cancelled it - not because of an issue with the DD system not working etc.

Put a SAR request into EE and if they can produce the dated letters then you don’t really have a leg to stand on.

Unless you’ve moved since cancelling the EE account and didn’t update them with your new address, in which case they would have sent them to the address on the account (the previous address).

At the end of the day you owe the money, you cancelled the DD before receiving the final bill so the onus is on you.

I cancelled because I was convinced that I had paid the final bill.
I'm wondering why they didn't try to resolve the issue by communicating with me by email or phone especially for something serious like this. They had both.

mattvolatile

!!! wrote: »

You cancelling a DD doesn't constitute something being covered by the DD guarantee.

No. if doesn't. But not properly notifying a DD customer before attempting to take payment absolutely does.

If EE now assert that they *did* advise, then I think OP will have to argue that he did not receive the notices. If his final bill does indeed say "THIS IS A FINAL BILL", then the point still stands.

OP: What, precisely, does your final bill say?